Hot Girl or Not? VIDEO

Hey yall, I tried to fix this person up in photoshop. took me about 5 min, check it


BEFORE

AFTER

[edit on 16-10-2006 by laiguana]

The woman's image in the end looked fake, almost looking like a CGI or a doll. Women should worry more about their mind than physical beauty, since physical beauty is only temporary and the mind's beauty will last with them for life.

Originally posted by Implosion
Dove are just finding a new angle to ensure they shift their units.

Sorry to quote myself [really!]; this paragraph from The Guardian relates my point far better than I could hope to:

Campaign. Take part. Join. Debate. The suggestion is that this is about action, this is about a change in consciousness, this is something that you should do for the sake of other women. When such rhetoric is used as an advertising gimmick to sell more soap, then the rhetoric itself becomes meaningless.

Source.

[edit on 16/10/06 by Implosion]

I think this belongs in BTS since I don't see what the conspiracy is. As far as the question is the original girl in the video Hot or not? I'll say Not. Not before or after. Photoshop and makeup did make a lot of improvements.

Now if you want a girl who looks hot, I'll go with the blonde girl seen in the sumo ad here on ATS and at a website here
www.sumolounge.com...

Guess I'm still wondering what her name is.

I think that most super models (kind of a wierd title anyway) look pretty strange. They are not very good looking either, not a hint of female sexuality, just sort of boyish bodies with long necks. Why so many people find them sexy is beyond me.

What a great thread, concerning one of my favorite topics for laid-back conversation...how mainstream media changes every aspect of someone's life in order to conform to a generally acceptable mold.

Without getting into detail, I was raised in the music industry and my mother is still active in it, and I've seen lots and lots of cases of this firsthand. Sometimes to the point of ruining a person's career when the plastic facade just can't be kept up anymore.

A friend of mine is an up-and-coming adult film star. Whenever she visits my area on one of her tours, she takes my friends and I out for nights on the town. When my friends see her movies or her website, they see one thing. In person, they can not even believe it is the same woman. Her looks are so heavily altered for the camera (even video), that she can almost lead two different lives without anyone knowing better. And that's not even "celebrity" status, she's not even cracking $1M a year yet...I can only imagine what Jenna Jamison looks like in real life, she's probably a hag

Originally posted by therainmaker

...I can only imagine what Jenna Jamison looks like in real life, she's probably a hag

I remember seeing Jenna Jameson in person a number of years ago. I don't remember ever seeing her in print though. I thought she looked good but was just another good looking girl at that time.

I had to do an internet search to see if my memory was correct. Can't link to the pics I found (ATS rules) and they look a lot better than I remember seeing her.

Some of the comments I'm seeing here are EXACTLY the problem that needs addressing. Why was that girl not attractive? She was. But the definition of what constitutes female beauty has been so skewed towards the absurd, that a quiet attractiveness like the before pictures is viewed as somehow inferior and unacceptable...

Is it any wonder that young girls in all walks of society are starving themselves to death?

Most of the supermodels working these days are not all that attractive, IMHO...I think they used to call it "heroin sheek" or something along those lines. Oddly enough, some of the older ones who aren't on the runways anymore are more attractive now than they ever were as working models. Rather ironic, don't you think?

This is actually a very important and timely topic.

WATS to Watch the Rocks for bringing it up.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by seagull]

Am I overreacting? I think the underlying issue here is so very important, especially as it applies to young women. If you don't look a certain way, you cannot be attractive.

Am I reading too much into this?

Originally posted by seagull
Am I reading too much into this?

Yes, it's an advertising campaign designed to sell soap and other beauty products. If they didn't think that it would generate interest, if they didn't think that they'd see a return, they never would have done it in the first place.

Everyone has their own point of view when it comes to the subject of beauty. One man's meat is another man's poison. The last people we need dictating to us how to think, are those with a product to sell.

I wasn't refering to the particular ad, at least not totally anyway... It just seems to me that no matter where you look these days, the accepted ideals of feminine beauty, at least according to the magazines on the racks, is the tall slender longnecked woman who looks like a good stiff breeze could knock her over.

We all see those magazines. Vouge, Cosmo., etc...

funny, I was riding the elevator with Christy Turlington the other night and I was thinking, man is she really plain looking.

ok, not plain, totally hot. they do a hell of a lot of work to make the models look better in the ads but the truth is, these women (and men) are incredibly well built specimens without all the goo and computer touch ups.

Yes, its a shame that we aren't all so "plain" looking.... However, they have the framework already present with which to work, and the makeup, camera angles, and the electronic touchups only enhance what is already there.

But a young woman who isn't so genetically blessed, with self-esteem issues might go to extremes in order to try to look more like Ms. Turlington, or some of the other covergirls. I just think its a diservice to these young women that they are considered less attractive because they are a size 8, rather than a size 4, when in all likelihood they are just as attractive, but in a quieter, less flamboyant, way.

As a mother of a teenage girl I feel the need to chime in. True enough this is an ad for a product therefore it intended to attract attention. That being said it is a statement on standards our young girls feel they need to attain to be considered attractive. Those standards are totally false the models aren't real the pictures have been airbrushed and edited to the point that there is nothing real. But, young girls are typically lacking self-esteem and yes folks I've seen young girls starve themselves trying to reach the goal of size 4 instead of the size that is healthy for them. Seagull is trying to make the point that we as a society have told these girls that they aren't hot or pretty if they aren't the skinny minis portrayed by the so-called supermodels. That girl was pretty before all the make-up and crap they did to her. Women will not be truely liberated until we stop allowing mainstream media to continually portray women as sexy and hot only if they are sizes 1-4.

It's not just models who want airbrushing. As a production artist, I have politicians who come in with photographs they want on fliers or billboards or brochures, etc. and one of the first things they ask is "how much better can you make this photo look?" One guy was probably in his 60's and he wanted to look "20 years younger" in his campaign fliers. My first response was "do you have a picture taken 20 years ago."

"Oh, but can't you make it look more realistic... the way they do to celebrities?"

But I agree with the message of the original post, and with the commercial... perceptions of beauty are becoming more and more unrealistic.

Perceptions of beauty have allways been unrealistic. The chinese would break and bind the feet of their women to keep their feet small. The huns and native americans would compress their newborn's heads with a board and some binding, to flatten it. I even recall seeing central american tribes that had drilled jade implants into their teeth, or african tribes that shatter their teeth to make them pointed. Not to mention the many groups that cover their skin with tattoos and scars to 'make themselves beautiful'.

Not that I am trying to defend the current assinine trend of parading waifs around and saying that they're gorgeous.

Ideals of beauty are always subjective, eye of the beholder and all that, but when women who are 5'9" or taller weigh in the neighborhood of 105 lbs. somethings not right. A prime example would be Nicole Richie...she's resembles nothing so much as a skeleton...her problem is now, I would guess, not only physical, but psychological...she thinks she's too fat. She's what five foot six maybe? She weighs maybe 85-90 lbs? If some form of intervention doesn't occur soon, she's going to become her generation's Karen Carpenter. She's the poster child for the medias relentless attempts to prove to us that unless you're a size 4, and built like a twig, you can't be attractive.

It bothers me that otherwise attractive women do this to themselves. I see magazine covers that glorify the slender, by saying you too can look like Nicole Kidman, or whomever, just use this diet. Then the same magazine rails about how skinney some starlet is...the message is confused, so a young girl sees only the cover with the slender, airbrushed seemingly perfect speciman and proceeds willy-nilly to attempt to be that girl, whether their bodies can do it or not.

How ironic

A company that sells lotions and potions to make women more 'attractive' suddenly has a vested interest in saving women from the falsness of the beauty industry.

Last time I looked, Dove sold shampoos and conditioners that promise 'perfect glossy hair' and moisturisers to keep you skin 'silky soft and blemish free.'

All of which are force fed to dogs under laboratory conditions in toxicity tests

They can take their 'campaign for real beauty' and stick it firmly up their @$$

Still waiting for the conspiracy angle - hey Mods" shouldn't this be relegated to BTS?

Oh yeah: still NOT Hot -still don't care. It won't make me buy or not buy soap. Though I can see the advertisers assuming I'd rather buy soap from someone that may look like plasto-chick#2 rather than country-bumpkin#1. Big deal.

Why are women still being used in advertising this way? Yeah I know "sex sells," but I think we lose a lot when we focus on external and not the internal.

I could get a better feel for who she was in the before picture than in the after. More depth, less makeup.